Jump to content

shull

Big Boris, Our Prime Minister

Recommended Posts

An English QC of irish descent operating through the Scottish courts, which are of course subject to the influence of the UK Supreme court.
The Case will be decided by England.
It'll be decided under Scots law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be decided under Scots law.
How does that work, TPAFKSTS? My understanding is that the vast majority of the judges forming the Court are non-Scots Law judges - 10 v 2 iirc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Looks possible that the DUP's "usefulness" may have expired. 

Bridge between NI and Scotland anyone? 

The DUP's "usefulness" was past its sell by date as soon as BJ was elected and decide to alienate more than 20 of his own MPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 5:06 PM, TPAFKATS said:
On 9/10/2019 at 3:21 PM, theknickerwetter said:
FFs , your not supposed to say that on here ! They be along with their pitchforks , chanting that you are a misogynist. They hold here sacred dont you know

No, most of us have moved on from the 1970s though.

Are you still hurting about the Jimmy Crankie comments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

I've read what you said properly, the links I've provided are not dubious - unlike the bulk of your ramblings.

 

Your opinions again , l disagree. You seem to dip into attempts at insults when l dont agree with you Bud. Anyone can get a link . Ruth Davidson ffs nearly as bad as the one who sold the shirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An English QC of irish descent operating through the Scottish courts, which are of course subject to the influence of the UK Supreme court.
The Case will be decided by England.


Just listening to LBC. What’s being said there is it’ll be decided by the Supreme Court in London.
Points of note.
1. “The ruling by the Scottish court is not legally binding”
2. “The Scottish ruling was held in a civil court with no evidence or counter arguments permitted. Just the opinion of the judges.”
3. “The Scottish court has declined to reverse prorogation.”
4. “The courts will not rule against the Queen on suspending parliament.”

With the Supreme Court ruling scheduled for next Tuesday, which is another week wasted minimum. They go on to say that the only way that Brexit can be stopped is by the opposition seizing control of parliament and revoke A50.

A lot of this is beyond my knowledge of what a lot of that entails. Interesting days ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Russian Saint said:

With the Supreme Court ruling scheduled for next Tuesday, which is another week wasted minimum. They go on to say that the only way that Brexit can be stopped is by the opposition seizing control of parliament and revoke A50.

So, let get this right, the opposition party have to seize control of Parliament (even though it isn't currently sitting) and revoke article 50 ...................... which is to say ignore the will of the people in a vote that was intended to be democratic and decisive ...........................unless of course it doesn't suit your viewpoint.  A load of charlatans in the house sitting collecting in the region of £80,000 plus for doing the opposite of what they have been mandated to do, or as Shull would say lying cheating thieving barstuards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jaybee said:

So, let get this right, the opposition party have to seize control of Parliament (even though it isn't currently sitting) and revoke article 50 ...................... which is to say ignore the will of the people in a vote that was intended to be democratic and decisive ...........................unless of course it doesn't suit your viewpoint.  A load of charlatans in the house sitting collecting in the region of £80,000 plus for doing the opposite of what they have been mandated to do, or as Shull would say lying cheating thieving barstuards.

I was brought up to believe judges were impartial but these ones seem politically motivated . I never voted for them or the European Commision. Ministers have to hand their phones in by 11pm tonite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was brought up to believe judges were impartial but these ones seem politically motivated . I never voted for them or the European Commision. Ministers have to hand their phones in by 11pm tonite
Judges have made a judgement under scots law. You might not agree but it's not political.
The amount of rage from brexiters, including politicians, because a legal judgement went against the government is both ludicrous and also quite worrying.
The judges decision isn't about brexit, it's about proroging parliament.

Accusing them of being political and questioning their impartiality is quite deluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does that work, TPAFKSTS? My understanding is that the vast majority of the judges forming the Court are non-Scots Law judges - 10 v 2 iirc.
It was a flippant comment in regards to BOK suggesting England would decide.
The judgement has been made under scots law and the supreme court will now hear. I think it's 9 judges with 2 Scots law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a flippant comment in regards to BOK suggesting England would decide.
The judgement has been made under scots law and the supreme court will now hear. I think it's 9 judges with 2 Scots law?
Wait a minute, if the Scots one is held under Scots Law and the English one is held under English law, couldn't that result in both decisions being upheld by the Supreme Court? Where the feck would that leave things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, theknickerwetter said:

Your opinions again , l disagree. You seem to dip into attempts at insults when l dont agree with you Bud. Anyone can get a link . Ruth Davidson ffs nearly as bad as the one who sold the shirt

wow!  You think other people engage in insults and say so as if it's a bad thing?

Ya wee Trump-ette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stlucifer said:

The DUP's "usefulness" was past its sell by date as soon as BJ was elected and decide to alienate more than 20 of his own MPs.

They won’t care, they got their £1bn bung from May. The NI parties are generally powerless anyway, this is as good as it was going to get for any of them and the DUP came out brilliantly from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:
2 hours ago, theknickerwetter said:
I was brought up to believe judges were impartial but these ones seem politically motivated . I never voted for them or the European Commision. Ministers have to hand their phones in by 11pm tonite

Judges have made a judgement under scots law. You might not agree but it's not political.
The amount of rage from brexiters, including politicians, because a legal judgement went against the government is both ludicrous and also quite worrying.
The judges decision isn't about brexit, it's about proroging parliament.

Accusing them of being political and questioning their impartiality is quite deluded.

Really, seriously? as a nasty wee yank git used tae say.................. you cannot be serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:
7 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:
It was a flippant comment in regards to BOK suggesting England would decide.
The judgement has been made under scots law and the supreme court will now hear. I think it's 9 judges with 2 Scots law?

Wait a minute, if the Scots one is held under Scots Law and the English one is held under English law, couldn't that result in both decisions being upheld by the Supreme Court? Where the feck would that leave things?

As far as I understand it, the Supreme Court is what it says it is, Supreme. Cases have been held now in England and in Scotland with courts which can only be superceded by the Supreme Court. In England, the case has reached there since those bringing the case have appealed the "no" decision and in Scotland as the judges here granted an appeal but recognised that this was likely to be appealed against so referred the matter to the supreme Court. Doing this made things happen more quickly.. Next week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a flippant comment in regards to BOK suggesting England would decide.
The judgement has been made under scots law and the supreme court will now hear. I think it's 9 judges with 2 Scots law?
9 English law judges, 2 Scots law judges & 1 NI law judge I think, hence 10 v 2.

You'd have to question the competency of those 10 to comment on Scots law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



As far as I understand it, the Supreme Court is what it says it is, Supreme. Cases have been held now in England and in Scotland with courts which can only be superceded by the Supreme Court. In England, the case has reached there since those bringing the case have appealed the "no" decision and in Scotland as the judges here granted an appeal but recognised that this was likely to be appealed against so referred the matter to the supreme Court. Doing this made things happen more quickly.. Next week


Yeah, well, thanks for explaining what everyone already knows. :hammer

The actual point of the question, though, was if (and I don't know if this is correct or not) the two appeals are heard under different legal systems then there is the possibility (however small) that it could end with conflicting results. What would the outcome then be? Maybe they aren't held under different legal systems and/or maybe they are being heard together (is it one decision, or two?) and it is a moot point.

If it turns out that both decisions are upheld (or both overturned) there will obviously be a conflict and a decision will have to be made one way or other. After that decision, there would be people that will claim that English law is being treated as more important than Scots law or Scots law is being treated as more important than English law.

Or is there a separate sort of "UK Law" that these are heard under?

We all know WHAT the Supreme Court does, very few of us will know the details of HOW it does it. I suppose we are all about to find out.

Where the feck's ZA when you need him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, theknickerwetter said:

Your opinions again , l disagree. You seem to dip into attempts at insults when l dont agree with you Bud. Anyone can get a link . Ruth Davidson ffs nearly as bad as the one who sold the shirt

….and if the links come from reputable sources like mine have they're called facts! 

As for insults - pots & kettles. 

Going back to Ruth Davidson, you asked the question - just another deflection because you can't handle the answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

….and if the links come from reputable sources like mine have they're called facts! 

As for insults - pots & kettles. 

Going back to Ruth Davidson, you asked the question - just another deflection because you can't handle the answer

Again , your opinions,  and again l disagree . For the record   whatever R Davidson said was irrelevant or as you say,  a distraction (sic) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Judges have made a judgement under scots law. You might not agree but it's not political.
The amount of rage from brexiters, including politicians, because a legal judgement went against the government is both ludicrous and also quite worrying.
The judges decision isn't about brexit, it's about proroging parliament.

Accusing them of being political and questioning their impartiality is quite deluded.

Lol, deluded.  That's your opinion,  in my opinion you Buddie are naive and should remove thy tinfoil hat .

Put the boot on the other foot for a minute and imagine that in 2014 52% of Scots had voted Yes and then 3 yrs later nothing had happened , we were still in the union and people were talking about revoking the Edinburgh agreement , and that England are our biggest trading partner and we shouldn't leave anyway bla, bla , remoan,  remoan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

9 English law judges, 2 Scots law judges & 1 NI law judge I think, hence 10 v 2.

You'd have to question the competency of those 10 to comment on Scots law.

You don't have to, the judges are all highly experienced and knowledgeable people who have had exposure to all of the jurisdictions of the UK.  I know Barristers who have been trained in Scotland and are based here who not only defend cases but prosecute on behalf of governmental institutions in courts right across the UK.  Scots law has it's own procedures and quirks, however these don't make Scots law a completely unique entity in the context of the UK

The key issue is, judgements made under UK law in the supreme court are held to be influential over the scottish courts.  Not necessarily binding, but if a court in Scotland fails to follow a precedent set in the supreme court then the trail goes back to the SC so there is a well-worn path that keeps all involved following the same principles 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...